A CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE.
THE bigamy case at the Central Criminal Court, which came to an abortive end on Saturday, is certainly one of the most remarkable cases which have ever been tried. As Mr, Justice Hawkins, whose experience in these matters is un- equalled, said, it is a case of such a character as only to occur once in a lifetime. It may be doubted, indeed, whether the Jury have not had full compensation for their enforced seclusion from the world during the week which the trial occupied, in having to take so prominent a part in a case which will give them some- thing to talk about for the rest of their lives. The whole circum- stances of the case are of the shilling improbability style which is now the fashion in romance. It has the merit, too, of being eompressed into a period of time which brings it into accordance with the strictest dramatic proprieties. Nothing in the drama is commonplace, and. nothing happens but the unexpected. A young lady of the middle-class, walking with her mother on the Brighton parade, on the Sunday before Easter, is accosted by
gentleman who insists, spite of the denial both of herself and her mother, that he has met her at a ball. But as he represents himself as a Captain in the Merchant Navy, he is allowed to walk with them. In the afternoon, spite of mamma's objections, the young lady and he go out for a drive together in a victoria ; they drive to Lewes and dine there, and only return in time to catch the 8.40 train to London, at a time of the year when it is dark at 6. He is then a declared lover ; and on Tuesday she meets him at the station, and they drive to Worthing; and in the evening, again spite of mamma's opposition, they are an engaged couple. The lover again returns to London in the evening. On Wednesday a special licence is produced, and they propose to be married on Good Friday. The clergyman con- sulted refuses that day, and suggests Thursday ; but the eager lovers have to adopt Saturday. On Saturday, at 8 a.m., they are married in due form, and go off to Chichester for a honeymoon almost as short as Romeo's, for on Easter Monday the lady returns to mamma, while the husband goes to join his ship. An interval of three months elapses. Juliet is then informed that Romeo has been met at a garden party airing his legs in Highland costume, but denies his identity, and says it is all a mistake. She is taken to see him, but, in spite of her affectionate reference to a scar on his forehead and a wanting tooth, he again denies that he is Romeo, and refers her to his wife. Juliet is left with her marriage-lines, a gold wedding-ring, and a memory of an eye- tooth, and the curtain falls.
It rises again at the Old Bailey, where James Malcolm, aged thirty-one, meat salesman at the Central Meat Market, is indicted, on the prosecution of Emma Dash, for marrying her on April 4th, 1885, at Brighton, his wife being then alive. Issue is joined ; and then begins what Kingsley calls a conflict grim and great. Miss Emma Dash, her mother, a lady friend, the parson who married them, another parson who 'escorted them to church on Good Friday, and three gentlemen, including the one who identified the husband in his Highland garb, all swear that he is the man who accosted the lady, took her for drives, took her to church as maid and bride, lived with her for two days, and then disappeared. It is shown also that Macdonald said he was captain of a ship of the singular name of Kaikonra,' and that Malcolm, in his trade, had sold a large quantity of frozen meat brought by a ship of that name. It is shown that the reason Macdonald gave for his return to London every night was that he had to be on his ship at 4 o'clock every morning, and Malcolm had to be at the Central Meat Market at 4 o'clock every morning. An expert swore that the handwriting of the signature Macdonald was the same as that in the word Macdonald in a letter written by Malcolm about the case, and that the handwriting of Macdonald and Malcolm was in other respects similar. It was shown that Macdonald had brought for his be- trothed's choice a large quantity of fancy rings "on approval," and that Malcolm was a friend of Flint, a jeweller, and was in the habit of being entrusted with rings to show people "an approval." It was shown that on a certain day Macdonald had telegraphed from Highbury, and that Malcolm was in High- bury on that day. It was shown that Macdonald had leave from his ship from Good Friday to Easter Tuesday, and that Malcolm had leave from his shop for the same time. Lastly, when the identification meeting took place, ambiguous utterances were credited to Malcolm. But, to take this point first, here the conflict of evidence began, not, indeed, between the prosecution and the defence, but between the witnesses for the prosecution. According to the prosecutrix, after Malcolm had twice said it was a mistake, she said she recognised him, and recognised ,a scar on his forehead, and said, "Donald, why don't you own that you are the man P" He replied, "Well, if I do, what then ?" Osborne, the garden-party identifier, said, "If you do, you commit yourself," and the prisoner then referred her to his wife. Mr. Osborne, however, said that when the prosecutrix said, "Why don't you own me?" Malcolm replied not "If I do, what then P" but, "If I say yes, then it will be all over." Miss Lewis, according to Miss Dash, said to the prisoner, "You have lost a tooth, have you not ?" and he said, "I have." Now, Miss Lewis denied having said anything about a tooth ; but said that the prosecutrix and she had talked about his tooth beforehand, and that she put her hand on prisoner's cheek and made him open his month, but noticed nothing. It is clear, therefore, that no reliance could be placed on the ambiguous utterances, as the witnesses do not agree as to what was said, and admit that a strenuous denial had been previously given. There are discre- pancies, again, between the evidence of mother and daughter. The daughter said that her mother objected to her going a drive with Macdonald on the first meeting; the mother said she knew nothing about it until they had been. The mother said that the licence was brought down on Tuesday ; but the licence was not taken out till Wednesday. The mother said that he brought an engaged ring on Tuesday ; the daughter said he brought a bundle of rings on Wednesday. But these discre- pancies are nothing compared to the conflict between prosecution and defence. The prosecution showed that Macdonald, whom they identified with Malcolm, was at Brighton, and in the company of the prosecutrix, on Sunday, March 29th, nearly the whole day, a great part of the following Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday ; the whole day on Good Friday, and both day and night from Saturday to Monday.
The defence proved, by the evidence of the defendant's sister and a friend named Williamson, that Malcolm was at home in London the whole of Sunday, March 29th. They proved, by the evidence of Mrs. Flint, her son, a man named Bladon, a member of the Salvage Corps, and a police constable, that on Tuesday, the 31st—when, according to the prosecu-
tion, be drove Miss Dash to Worthing, proposed to her, and returned to London by the 8.40 train, which arrived at 10.35 at London Bridge—that, in answer to a telegram sent by Mrs. Flint's son, the defendant came to her business premises in London, and was present at a fire there at 9 to 9.30; while three other witnesses swore that Malcolm was at their shop in London the same afternoon at from 2 to 3 o'clock. Again, on Wednesday, when the prosecution alleged that he was at Brighton at least from 5 to 8.40, Mrs. Flint swore that he was at her shop from 1.30 to 3.30 or 4; Williamson swore that he went to his house in Islington, and saw him there between 7 and 8 in the evening. On Thursday, when Macdonald was at Brighton with Miss Dash, and slept at Brighton, Malcolm signed his articles of engagement at a solicitor's in London at 12 o'Clock ; was at Mr. Brown's, a surgeon, on a professional visit, at 4 o'clock ; at a shop in Islington between 5.30 and 6.15 p.m.; at his own house in Islington and visited by Williamson between 7 and 8 p.m. ; and seen by his sister there at 11 p.m. On Good Friday and Saturday Malcolm is not accounted for, except as having taken a room, and stayed not at the Clarendon, which was full, but at the Victoria Hotel, at Brighton. But he took no meals in the hotel ; and it is odd that no evidence is forthcoming as to what he did those two days, except that he was in the hotel at 4 o'clock on Saturday afternoon. Bat on Easter Sunday, when Macdonald was with his bride at the Dolphin, Chichester, Malcolm was in bed at the Victoria Hotel, Brighton, in the morning ; met Williamson at the station at Brighton in company with a Miss Jay ; lunched with Williamson at the Clarendon (according to Williamson and the manageress of the Clarendon Hotel), and in the after- noon drove to Shoreham with Williamson and Miss Jay. He was identified by the driver; but Miss- Jay, who went back to London with Williamson in the evening, was curiously enough not forthcoming. On Monday, however, Malcolm paid his bill at the Victoria Hotel, Brighton, and was seen by all the people there. It is true that doubt was thrown on the evidence of the hotel- manager by the fact that Makolm's bill was entered under date of September instead of April ; but the mistake was made in the case of another gentleman too, and is not impossible or improbable. Only this week the present writer received a letter dated December instead of September. Moreover, the people at the Dolphin Hotel, Chichester, did not appear, being unable to identify Macdonald with Malcolm. The conflict of evidence is, therefore, absolute. The evi- dence of identity by strangers — by Mr. Osborne, the parsons, the drivers on one side or the other, and the hotel- keepers—may, perhaps, be discounted or discarded. Still, the conflict is absolute as to the two important Sundays of the first meeting and the honeymoon. On both those days, if Williamson is to be believed—and he is corroborated as to the first by the prisoner's sister, and as to the second by the hotel people at Brighton—the alai is complete. The case as to the Tuesday on which Macdonald proposed is even stronger. The evidence as to Malcolm's presence at the fire at the Flints' is overwhelming, if the Flints are to be believed. It is a subject of comment, no doubt, that Mr. Flint was not called as to the rings or the fire; but it may well have been thought that Mrs. Flint's evidence was so strong that there was no reason to take Mr. Flint from his business.
Either, therefore, there was an absolute conspiracy—em- bracing the defendant's sister, Williamson, Mrs. Flint, an several shopkeepers—or there was a bond-fide mistake as to identity. The third alternative of a mistake as to dates is untenable. Either the prosecution was mistaken, or the defence was perjured., It was urged that circumstances, which can- not lie, were against the defendant. Bat the most important circumstance is the tooth. Macdonald complained of toothache, said he had an eye-tooth out, and gave one to Miss Dash, and Miss Dash believed (and she ought to know) that Macdonald had an eye-tooth out. It is proved by the dentist, and evidenced by his book, that Malcolm did not lose any eye-tooth till July 10th, when he himself extracted it. It is another oddity of the case that July 10th was the day after the defendant was identified at the garden-party. But if the tooth incident was part of a deep- laid scheme, would it not have been better carried out by leaving in a tooth which was supposed to be out The only circumstances, therefore, remaining unexplained are the use of the out-of-the-way name, Kaikonra,' and the coincidence of Macdonald and Malcolm both going to work in London at 4 a.m. But these are coincidences which might be explained by the hypothesis that the actual Macdonald had something to do with the Kaikoura,' and also went to work at 4 a.m. Anyhow, the jury might well be excused from convicting on a couple of coincidences. The case is a mystery. It is one which makes one almost regret the private inquisition adminis- tered by a French jugs d'instruction before the defendant has time to arrange his defence. At least, it would have been more satisfactory if Malcolm and his wife could both have been ex- amined. Meanwhile, we confess, hard as it is on the parties, to looking forward with the greatest interest to a new trial.
Previous page
